Irreversible transition of U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system

angelburst29

The Living Force
“The U.S. has been in control of the domain names of the Internet since its inception (18 years) and has been managed by NTIA, through a contract agreement. That contract is coming due for renewal but Obama has been pushing for an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, to take full control. Congress has blocked two previous attempts for this take over. October 1st is the beginning of a 15 day transition period - an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration. The "timing" is interesting since both houses of Congress adjourned for a six-week recess; they are not scheduled to return until November 14, after Election Day. So, to further delay and halt this transfer, four States (Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada) have filed a Lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas.


Hours left before Obama's Internet giveaway 'irreversible'
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hours-left-before-obamas-internet-giveaway-irreversible/

Sen. Ted Cruz has posted online a countdown clock that reveals there’s just hours left before the U.S. gives away the Internet in a move critics have warned is “irreversible.”

It was the late Phyllis Schlafly who, earlier this year, characterized President Obama’s plan to give away U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system as “like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop,” trusting the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and China to ensure the continued freedom of the Web.

The transfer of oversight to an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, set for Saturday (Oct 1st), “could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen,” the conservative icon said at the time.

On Thursday, after months of Congress failing to halt Obama’s move, four states took action on their own.

The lawsuit by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department of Commerce and others seeks a halt to the plan.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas, the lawsuit argues the U.S. funded the foundations of the Internet and for decades has been managing it appropriately, including through contracts such as the NTIA’s agreement with ICANN to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

But that contract is expiring Friday, and Obama’s plan is to give up that authority to ICANN.

The lawsuit isn’t the only opposition that has arisen in the fourth quarter.

A coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity and industry leaders wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just days ago asking for intervention.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter said.

“Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.”

The signers included former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney Jr., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency Vice Adm. Robert Monroe (Ret.) and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, among others.

They warned: “In the absence of U.S. government involvement in IANA, it seems possible that, over time, foreign powers – including potentially or actually hostile ones – will be able to influence the IANA process. Even coercing the delay in approving IP addresses could impact military capabilities. From a broader view, given the well-documented ambition of these actors to restrict freedom of expression and/or entrepreneurial activity on the Internet, such a transfer of authority to ICANN could have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for untold numbers of people worldwide.”

Just a few days earlier, GOP senators, including Chuck Grassley, Ted Crux, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, released a statement opposing the giveaway.

“It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few,” they said.

Without adequate answers to these questions, it would be irresponsible to allow the transition to occur in 15 days simply because of an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration.

“In fact, Democrats at both the state and national level have echoed many of these concerns. For example, former President Bill Clinton has warned that ‘[a] lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower[ing] their people.’

“The issue of Internet freedom should unite us Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship.”

In the lawsuit, the states warn that .gov addresses are at risk.

“The NTIA currently has the authority to authorize changes performed by ICANN. Should NTIA fail to renew the contract and relinquish its approval authority, ICANN could take unilateral actions adversely affecting the .gov address. The sole control that the U.S. government would have to safeguard .gov and .mil is through an exchange of letters, which are non-binding and lack the certainty of a legal contract that would guarantee U.S. control and ownership in the future.”

ICANN could, for example, the letter noted, “eventually delete the .gov top-level domain name or transfer it to some other entity, cutting off communications between the states and their citizens and forcing the states to use ordinary top-level domain names (such as .com) to try to community with their citizens.”

ICANN also “could charge additional fees,” the states noted.

Congress already has acted twice to prevent the move, adopting “appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds ‘to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration … with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.'”

“Is this move going to strengthen America, or is this move going to weaken it? I think it’s very clear that if we do what President Obama wants to do, it’ll weaken America’s stance again,” said Yoho, who is a strong supporter of the DOTCOM Act.

That bill passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly last year but didn’t get action in the Senate.

“The U.S. has been in control of the domain names of the Internet since its inception. If we relinquish this control, it goes possibly to the U.N. Then you have countries like Russia, China and Iran and any other country that wants to play, and [they get to] determine how to regulate those domain names within their countries,” Yoho explained.

He warned of authoritarian leaders controlling what their people can access.

“I think you’re going to see a decrease in access to the Internet, a decrease of freedom over the Internet to an extent we have never experienced before,” he said.

Judith Bergman of the Gatestone Institute said the move could “spell the end of the current era of free speech on the Internet, as well as free enterprise.”

Authoritarian governments around the world already have bolstered Bergman’s case. China issued a statement saying, “It is necessary to ensure that United Nations plays a facilitating role in setting up international public policies pertaining to the Internet.”

The Russians weighed in, arguing, “We consider it necessary to consecutively increase the role of governments in the Internet governance, with strengthening the activity of the International Telecommunications Union [the UNs telecommunications arm] in this field … in the development of ethical aspects of Internet use.”

Last month, a coalition told leaders of both parties in Congress that it already has ordered the NTIA “not to let lapse the government contract.”

But the Obama administration is doing exactly that.

“It is, by its own admission, doing so as part of a drawn-out process resulting in the decision to let the IANA contract lapse – precisely what Congress forbade NTIA to do,” coalition members said.

“If NTIA allows the contract to lapse, it will have violated federal law,” the letter said. “The decision to abandon an 18-year contractual relationship governing the Internet has obviously consumed significant NTIA resources, both to fund outside experts and to pay for time spent on the issue and on NTIA employees making a decision about whether the extend the contract.”

October 1 is D-Day for the start of the international takeover of the Internet, a scheme the Obama administration and the United Nations have been advancing for years. Why are GOP leaders AWOL as President Obama and the United Nations move to transfer critically important jurisdiction over the Internet to an unaccountable UN-aligned monopoly? Why are Ryan and McConnell doing nothing?

Obama-UN Internet Takeover Is Just Hours Away
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/24165-obama-un-internet-takeover-is-just-hours-away-congress-must-act

On October 1 — which is only hours away — U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system is scheduled to be stripped from the U.S. and transferred to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) designed by global “multistakeholder” activists. Members of Congress, national security experts, military professionals, constitutional authorities, privacy advocates, and human rights activists are warning that this pending transition to “independent” oversight by “the international community” is fraught with danger.

However, as on so many other crucial issues, the Republican-controlled Congress is acting as a rubber stamp for Obama. Although few Americans are aware of the serious threat posed by this impending transition, the UN’s Internet takeover scheme is not something that has sprung upon us recently or ex nihilo; we have been reporting on this growing peril for the past several years.

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG), yesterday blasted House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for failing even to attempt to block the Internet giveaway, while at the same time caving in to threats of a government shutdown by President Obama and the Democrats if the Republicans didn’t give them all the funding they demanded. One of the key issues was a deal to provide the city of Flint, Michigan, a liberal Democrat stronghold, with $170 million in federal funds for their municipal water supply.

“So, Democrats block the continuing resolution, demand money for the Flint, Mich. water supply,” noted Manning. “House Republicans led by House Speaker Paul Ryan relent and agree to add it to the House water bill after that proposal was defeated in the House Rules Committee, and got nothing in return.”

“Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats were actively demanding extra add-ons for these bills, and they couldn’t even get a rider stopping the irreversible transition of U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system," ALG’s Manning charged. “That, even though the Department of Justice has repeatedly failed to respond to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a number of outstanding legal concerns with the Internet transition of U.S. oversight of the domain name system,” he said, referring to the most recent letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

In their September 21 letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chairmen raised serious national security concerns and important constitutional matters that the Department of Justice has failed to address, despite repeated requests. The DOJ has failed to address, the chairmen pointed out, “how the transfer will effect free speech and the openness of the Internet, if U.S. control of the .mil and .gov domains will be compromised, if the transfer will open the Internet to undue influence from foreign nations, if the transfer will lead to the improper conveyance of United States government property, or if the transfer affects any existing antitrust immunity and increases the likelihood of significant antitrust litigation.”

ALG’s Rick Manning charges that “these issues risk either creating an unaccountable global Internet monopoly or a potentially fractured domain name system if antitrust does come into play. The transition proposal contemplates neither scenario, and these issues cannot be addressed once the transition occurs on October 1.” (See here for a detailed legal analysis by ALG’s senior editor Robert Romano of the anti-trust issues involved in the transfer.)

The letter by chairmen Grassley and Goodlatte asked Attorney General Lynch to answer “whether or not the administration has the constitutional authority to conduct the IANA transition without the authorization of Congress because of the United States property interests in the root zone file — or other similar components of the Internet that were created and financed by the United States.” The chairmen pointed out that under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”

On September 26, a stellar coalition of 77 generals, admirals, intelligence experts, cybersecurity professionals, and industry leaders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford, calling on them to intervene in opposition to President Obama’s radical plan to jeopardize the security of the Internet, which is vital to national (and global) security.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter states. Of immediate concern, say these national security professionals, “is the prospect that the United States might be transferring to future adversaries a capability that could facilitate, particularly in time of conflict, cyberwarfare against us.” The letter continued, “In the absence of NTIA’s stewardship, we would be unable to be certain about the legitimacy of all IP addresses or whether they have been, in some form or fashion, manipulated, or compromised. Given the reliance of the U.S. military and critical infrastructure on the Internet, we must not allow it to be put needlessly at risk.”

Among the signers of the letter are Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), former commander-in-chief U.S. Pacific Fleet; Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.), former deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence; Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff, United States Air Force; Hon. Charles E. Allen, former under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for intelligence and analysis; Lt. Gen. C. E. McKnight, Jr., USA (Ret.), former director, Command and Control Systems for Nuclear Forces, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. Lani Kass, former firector, Air Force Chief of Staff’s Cyber Task Force; Rear Adm. Philip S. Anselmo, USN (Ret.), former director of Command Control Communications Computers and Intelligence (C4I); Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), Chairman, House of Representatives’ Committee on Science Space and Technology Subcommittee; Jody R. Westby, CEO, Global Cyber Risk LLC and former chief administrative officer & counsel, In-Q-Tel.

Considering the Obama administration’s contempt for the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, its record for ignoring Congressional requests and concerns, and President Obama’s penchant for “legislating” by executive order, it is not surprising that the administration has completely ignored these appeals by Congress, as well as military and cybersecurity experts. Nor is it a surprise that the Republican leaders have failed, once again, to fight for America’s vital interests. As ALG’s Manning notes, their failure even to engage Obama on this issue is inexcusable.

“Did they even try?” Manning asks. “Ryan and McConnell have not issued any public statements on the matter, so we must assume they actively agree with surrendering U.S. oversight of the Internet. They didn’t even put up a fight. House and Senate Republicans are not what they say, they are what they do. And what they are doing is allowing President Obama to give away the Internet to the international community, threatening the American people’s vital Internet freedoms. And don’t let any Republican tell you different.”

Last-ditch effort: State Attorneys General sue to block transfer

The clock is ticking and October 1 is only hours away. Yesterday both houses of Congress adjourned for a six-week recess; they are not scheduled to return until November 14, after Election Day. In a last-ditch effort to stop the planned transfer, the attorneys general of four states -- Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada -- filed a lawsuit yesterday in federal district court in Texas. The suit says the four states “seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA); the United States of America; the United States Department of Commerce; Penny Pritzker, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; and Lawrence E. Strickling, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator of NTIA.”

“The States each operate multiple websites, including those that use the .gov top-level domain name, to conduct their business and communicate with their citizens,” the complaint states. “Examples of these government websites include www.az.gov, www.Texas.gov, www.Oklahoma.gov, and www.nv.gov. State agencies also maintain .gov websites, such as www.azag.gov. These .gov websites are well-known, established sources of reliable and authoritative information for citizens, and private companies and persons are not allowed to use .gov addresses.”

“Substituting unchecked ICANN oversight in place of NTIA’s current role also exposes Plaintiffs to possible interference in its property interests from foreign governments,” the four-state complaint continues. “ICANN’s transition proposal outlines a distinct role for governments outside the United States as voting participants in a Government Advisory Committee that may send advice directly to ICANN’s Board. This mechanism could result in foreign governments pressuring ICANN over policy matters that will directly affect the property interests of the Plaintiffs.”

The complaint was submitted by Attorney General of Arizona Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General State of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt, and Attorney General State of Nevada Adam Paul Laxalt. Barring an extraordinary outpouring of public pressure that forces Congress to convene an emergency session, the outcome of this pending court case may be the only thing standing in the way of the transfer.

Related article:

U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Block Obama's Internet Giveaway
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/24041-u-s-lawmakers-aim-to-block-obama-s-internet-giveaway
 
Re: Irreversible transition of U.S. oversight Internet’s domain name system

US prepares to cede key role for internet
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/us-prepares-cede-key-role-internet-020013192.html

The US government is set to cut the final thread of its oversight of the internet, yielding a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant role over the online address system.

Barring any last-minute glitches, the transition will occur at midnight Friday (0400 GMT Saturday), when the US contract expires for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet's so-called "root zone."

When the agreement with the US Commerce Department runs out, ICANN will become a self-regulating non-profit international entity managing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the system for online "domains" such as .com.

US and ICANN officials say the change is part of a longstanding plan to "privatize" those functions, but some critics complain about a "giveaway" that could threaten the internet's integrity.

Christopher Mondini, ICANN's vice president for global business engagement, said the change will have no impact on day-to-day internet use, and will assure the global community that the system is free from government regulation and interference.

"This is a new kind of governance model," he told AFP.

The system will be managed through a "multistakeholder" model in which engineers, businesses, non-government groups and government bodies serve as checks against any single entity.

If any of the groups that make up ICANN see the organization veering away from its mission, Mondini said, "they can initiate measures to self-correct."

- 'Byzantine' structure -

Some US lawmakers who see risks with the model have sought to stop the transition, arguing it would allow authoritarian regimes to have greater control over the internet.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz has been seeking to block what he calls a "radical" plan to give away control of the internet.

ICANN "is not a democratic body," Cruz told a hearing earlier this month.

"It is a corporation with a Byzantine governing structure designed to blur lines of accountability that is run by global bureaucrats who are supposedly accountable to the technocrats, to multinational corporations, to governments, including some of the most oppressive regimes in the world like China, Iran, and Russia."

Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint echoed that sentiment, saying in a tweet that President Barack Obama "wants to cede US control of our free, secure internet to foreign regimes who don't value freedom of speech."

- 'Strengthening' internet -

Supporters of the plan counter that critics' harsh rhetoric fails to recognize how the internet has functioned and thrived over the years.

"This transition has been built upon a bipartisan consensus for almost 20 years through multiple administrations," said Kathryn Brown, president of the Internet Society, which was created by some of the internet's founders.

"The transition will further strengthen the internet as a stable, resilient and secure tool for empowering billions of people across the globe for decades to come."

Google senior vice president Kent Walker also endorsed the shift, saying it would "fulfill a promise the United States made almost two decades ago: that the internet could and should be governed by everyone with a stake in its continued growth."

Six Democratic US lawmakers meanwhile warned of the dangers if Washington fails to follow through on its pledge to disengage.

"The internet belongs to the world, not to Ted Cruz," Senators Brian Schatz and Chris Coons, and Representatives Anna Eshoo, Doris Matsui, Frank Pallone and Mike Doyle said in an article for the TechCrunch news site.

"If the Republicans successfully delay the transition, America's enemies are sure to pounce. Russia and its allies could push to shift control of the internet's core functions to a government body like the UN where they have more influence."

Any delay could fuel interest in a rival numbering system that could fragment the internet into possibly unconnected networks, they added.

Cruz and his allies have unsuccessfully sought to attach an amendment to a government funding bill aimed at halting the transition.

The transition should go forward even if it is "imperfect," said Daniel Castro, vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

"US government interference at this point would undermine global consensus and reduce confidence in the multistakeholder model at a time when these attributes are needed most," he said in a blog post.

The transition "marks a key 'constitutional moment' for internet governance," he added, "and the United States should ensure it is on the right side of history."


Four Republican state attorneys general are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution.

State AGs sue to stop Obama's internet transition
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/state-ags-sue-to-stop-internet-transition-228893#ixzz4Lko5jFgN

The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.”

“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

A spokeswoman for NTIA, the Commerce Department agency handling the transition, declined to comment on the case Thursday. Previously, federal officials have said any delay to their transition plans would embolden the U.S. government’s harshest critics.

Larry Strickling, the leader of NTIA, said earlier this month that the government had spent “two years developing a plan,” stressing that any last-minute attempt to abandon it would “hurt the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world.” And his agency has repeatedly refuted some of the claims made in the lawsuit filed Wednesday. For example, it's pointed to a study by the Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog, which concluded that the transition does not wrongly turn over U.S. government property.

Since the 1990s, the U.S. has sought to unwind its influence from the Web’s architecture, arguing that experts from the international community — and not governments, including Washington — should oversee its day-to-day operations.

But the transition of the domain-name system to ICANN gained new momentum in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks about U.S. surveillance, with the Obama administration eager to avoid criticism from world leaders that Washington has too much power over the internet.

Tech companies have largely supported that plan, which the Commerce Department first announced in 2014. But conservatives on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, have argued that by loosening its grip on the internet, the administration will empower the likes of Russia and China and give them a bigger opening to control and censor the web.

Cruz initially sought to block the transfer as part of the Senate’s latest spending deal, hoping to revive a congressional ban on the Commerce Department’s ICANN work from the previous budget. He even enlisted the help of GOP nominee Donald Trump, who chided the Obama administration for risking the future of internet freedom.

But Senate lawmakers, fearing a shutdown, ultimately opted against blocking the internet governance transition as part of a budget deal brokered on Wednesday. The House, hours later, followed suit. House Republicans, however, have not yet decided whether they intend to launch a legal action of their own against the Obama administration over the internet issue.

In an interview Thursday with POLITICO, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich stressed he joined other states in the lawsuit because "essentially Congress went into its default mode, which is do nothing."

"I think, as a matter of philosophy, turning this over ultimately is maybe a great idea in the long run," the attorney general said, "but I do think there are a lot of stakeholders involved, and we want to make sure no one in the future can limit or suppress access to the internet or punish people for speaking their minds."
 
Re: Irreversible transition of U.S. oversight Internet’s domain name system

President Barack Obama and his administration are giving up control of the Internet to foreign interests for nothing even though the United States developed it, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told a rally.

Obama Giving Away Control of Internet to Foreign Interests - Trump
https://sputniknews.com/us/20161001/1045893465/internet-control-obama.html

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is used to coordinate internet domain names across the world.

"America losing control of the Internet to foreign interests," Trump told a crowd he estimated at more than 20,000 in Novi, Michigan on Friday. "We come up with the Internet and they want to give it away."

ICANN has been overseen by the US Department of Commerce, but the Obama administration has agreed to cede control of the entity to an independent global oversight committee starting today.

Trump accused the Obama administration of failing to protect US interests in the agreement.

"It's not the job of our leaders to represent the global community. It's the job of our leaders to represent American citizens… We invent the Internet and they just want to give it away. Someone is benefitting from that deal," Trump said.

On Wednesday, four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to prevent the transfer of the Internet from ICANN to the new oversight body.


As the Obama Administration prepares to cede control of the Internet to an international body, four Republican lawmakers have sued to prevent the handover from taking place.

US Top Lawyers File Lawsuit to Stop Obama From 'Giving Away' Internet Control
https://sputniknews.com/politics/20160930/1045851685/icann-lawsuit.html

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is used to coordinate internet domain names across the globe. While it is currently overseen by the US Department of Commerce, Washington has vowed to cede control of ICANN to an independent global oversight committee starting October 1.

While the transition has been encouraged by the global community for years, Republicans aren’t exactly thrilled with the concept. On Wednesday, four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to prevent the transfer.

On behalf of Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Texas, the suit alleges that the transition illegally hands over US government property.

The chief concern for opponents of the transition is that ceding control of the internet could threaten the open nature of the World Wide Web, a concern echoed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

"Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy," he said in a statement, according to Politico.

"The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish."

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich argued that the transition shouldn’t be rushed.

The transition has broad support, including from the tech industry.

"A global, interoperable and stable internet is essential for our economic and national security, and we remain committed to completing the nearly twenty year transition to the multi stakeholder model that will best serve US interests," reads a letter to the US Congress sent earlier this month, signed by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, and Cloudflare. "The internet is defined by its inclusiveness and openness. Those critical characteristics are reflected in the work that…went into the drafting of the transition." Fahi Chehade, the current head of ICANN, has also voiced support for the move. "I feel the proposal will lead us to a global, independent, neutral, well-governed organization," he said last year. "I’m never comfortable, but I am optimistic and I believe that all interests are now aligned…Everybody sees that this makes sense."


With President Obama prepared to fulfill a long-held promise to the world, Republicans are doing everything in their power to maintain US control over the World Wide Web.

As US Readies to Give Up Control of Internet, Republicans Desperate to Hold On
https://sputniknews.com/us/20160920/1045489117/republicans-resist-icann-transition.html

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is used to coordinate internet domain names across the globe. While it is currently overseen by the US Department of Commerce, Washington has vowed to cede control of ICANN to an independent global oversight committee, and the transition will take effect on October 1.

Republican lawmakers have consistently opposed the plan, however. As the end of September draws closer, the GOP is making a last ditch effort to keep ICANN under America’s authority.

"If the Obama Administration hands control of the Internet over to this international organization, it’s not like the next president can magically snap his or her fingers and bring it back," said Texas Senator Ted Cruz, according to the Washington Examiner.

Cruz and Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, a rider to a spending bill that must be passed by Congress by September 30.

"There is a broad range of important questions on both law and policy that remain outstanding with respect to the proposed transfer," reads a letter signed by multiple Republican lawmakers and addressed to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. Despite the outcry from Congressional Republicans, the transition has support from a variety of sectors, including tech giants.


As the Obama Administration prepares to cede America’s control of the internet, major tech companies have written a letter urging the president to follow through.

Tech Giants Urge US Congress to Speed Up Internet Handover to Int’l Agency
https://sputniknews.com/science/20160914/1045280344/icann-tech-support.html

Currently overseen by the US Department of Commerce, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is used to coordinate internet domain names across the globe. Washington has vowed for years to cede control of ICANN to an independent global oversight committee, and is set to do so next month.

"NTIA [National Telecommunications & Information Administration] has thoroughly reviewed the report. We informed ICANN today that based on that review and barring any significant impediment, NTIA intends to allow the [Internet Assigned Numbers Authority] functions contract to expire as of October 1," NTIA Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling wrote last month.

There remain a number of vocal opponents to the plan, including Texas Senator and former presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

To voice their support for the transition, tech giants including Google, Facebook, and Twitter wrote a letter to the US Congress on Tuesday.

The Internet is defined by its inclusiveness and openness. Those critical characteristics are reflected in the work that…went into the drafting of the transition."

Other signatories to the letter include Amazon, Yahoo, and Cloudflare. The global community has long supported the transition, as well as current ICANN head Fadi Chehade. "I feel the proposal will lead us to a global, independent, neutral, well-governed organization,” he said last year. "I’m never comfortable, but I am optimistic and I believe that all interests are now aligned…Everybody sees that this makes sense." Senator Cruz has argued against the plan to “give away the Internet” and create an environment so that "countries like Russia, China, and Iran could be able to censor speech on the Internet."


Moscow calls for a common set of rules to counter the spread of terrorism, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov said.

Moscow Favors Global Internet Rules to Tackle Terrorism
https://sputniknews.com/world/20160930/1045857000/russia-mfa-web-terror.html

Moscow calls for a common set of rules of conduct for countries to tackle the spread of terrorism, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov said.

"There needs to be a clear approach. In Russia's view the information and communication space, the internet need to serve the cause of peace, not the spread of terrorist ideology. We need to establish rules for the countries to behave responsibly online. There is no escaping this," Syromolotov told RIA Novosti. He underscored that counterterrorism efforts not only include a military approach, "but countering terrorist financing, countering the drug threat that feeds it, combating organized crime and information security."
 
Re: Irreversible transition of U.S. oversight Internet’s domain name system

Moscow Drops Microsoft on Putin’s Call for Self-Sufficiency
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/moscow-drops-microsoft-outlook-as-putin-urges-self-sufficiency

September 27, 2016

* City hall switching to local software installed by Rostelecom

* Russia cuts dependence on U.S. tech amid political tensions

Moscow city will replace Microsoft Corp. programs with domestic software on thousands of computers in answer to President Vladimir Putin’s call for Russia’s authorities to reduce dependence on foreign technology amid tensions with the U.S. and Europe.

The city will initially replace Microsoft’s Exchange Server and Outlook on 6,000 computers with an e-mail system installed by state-run carrier Rostelecom PJSC, Artem Yermolaev, head of information technology for Moscow, told reporters Tuesday. Moscow may expand deployment of the new software, developed by Russia’s New Cloud Technologies, to as many as 600,000 computers and servers, and may also consider replacing Windows and Office, Yermolaev said.

Putin is urging state entities and local companies to go domestic amid concerns over security and reliability after U.S. firms shut down paid services in Crimea following Russia’s 2014 annexation. The plan poses a challenge to the likes of Microsoft, SAP SE and Oracle Corp. in the country’s $3 billion software market. Adding to pressure, Putin’s internet czar German Klimenko wants to raise taxes on U.S. technology companies to help Russian competitors such as Yandex NV and Mail.ru Group Ltd.

"We want the money of taxpayers and state-run firms to be primarily spent on local software," Communications Minister Nikolay Nikiforov told reporters. From 2017, government entities including the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service, General Prosecutor’s Office and Audit Chamber "will be tightening their grip" on state institutions that aren’t switching to domestic alternatives, he said.

Microsoft declined to comment.

Government entities spend about 20 billion rubles ($295 million) a year on foreign software, according Nikiforov. His ministry has produced a list of nearly 2,000 Russian software products that state-run companies should use instead of products from global vendors.

Moscow’s government has already switched Cisco Systems Inc. technology for city surveillance cameras to local software, Yermolaev said. State media company Rossiya Segodnya and Moscow’s regional government switched from Oracle database systems to open-code PostgreSQL software supported by local programmers, according to Digital Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom